Lonan3 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Guardian Link Police forces in much of the UK could be forced to destroy the DNA details of hundreds of thousands of people with no criminal convictions, after a court ruled today that keeping them breaches human rights. The European court of human rights in Strasbourg said that keeping innocent people's DNA records on a criminal register breached article eight of the Human Rights Convention, covering the right to respect for private and family life. Keeping DNA material from those who were "entitled to the presumption of innocence" as they had never been convicted of an offence carried "the risk of stigmatisation", the ruling said. The decision could oblige the government to order the destruction of DNA data belonging to those without criminal convictions among the approximately 4.5m records on the England, Wales and Northern Ireland database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 im sort of thinking its good, but then on the other hand its not good, cant decide, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 im sort of thinking its good, but then on the other hand its not good, cant decide, Why would it not be good Gazza? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 im sort of thinking its good, but then on the other hand its not good, cant decide, Why would it not be good Gazza? I'm undecided on this issue. It has successfully caught people who have subsequently been convicted of some fairly horrible crimes (eg. that young model who has murdered then raped) but it is a step towards an Orwellian state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Why is this good news? As far as I'm concerned, if my DNA was stored on a database, surely it would assist in the clearing me of any crimes I may be suspected of. If everyone's DNA was stored, surely this would help with catching criminals? It's like people complaining about CCTV cameras infringing on their bloody liberties. If you've done nothing wrong, what are you so bothered about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 im sort of thinking its good, but then on the other hand its not good, cant decide, Why would it not be good Gazza? what thay just said ^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 i'm thinking it isn't such good news either. there may be 1 or 2 folks on there who are completely innocent, and if they are, what's the issue?? the down side is that someone who HAS committed a crime and due to lack of corroborating witness testimony or such a minor issue it gets dropped anyway. they may still be technically 'innocent' ( not actually convicted ) but it doesn'y mean they didn't do it. these folks if they know their DNA is on file and registered to them may think twice about doing anything else cos the chances of being caught are greater. it would be like saying that all photo's of crooks should be destroyed too cos it shows what the person looks like. just bollox from brussels as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 The state is MY servant, not the other way round. If I'm guilty of nothing, and don't want my DNA taken and retained, why should they have the right to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 From what I understand this issue isn't about taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested - its about keeping it. I am happy with this distinction - I am not happy with the idea that everybody should have their DNA taken at birth and it put on a database - though some people on the forums go "what's the issue if you do no wrong it won't affect you, it'll only stop the guilty." I'm troubled by that, though I have difficulty articulating exactly why. I think people have a right to privacy and police do not have the right to hold evidence on people just because it might be useful in the future. Also things can be made a crime in the future which are not a crime now and this seems a way to pre-incriminate people; I realise that seems a bit weak, but I really find the idea of the police maintaining files on people just in case distasteful. If their is already existing evidence and the police wish to confirm or deny that someone matches this evidence then create procedure to allow them to obtain the DNA. But if the people so checked are found to be unconnected with the crime I do not think that this information should be kept, just in case, for a hypothetical future case. The news reports said this was the situation in Scotland at the moment, and the Court of Human Rights complemented their system while condemning the English system. I think I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 The reason why it is good that this data is removed is simple. Nobody SHOULD have any responsibility to prove themselves innocent when they have not committed a crime or done anything wrong. Holingd information such as this on a database recognises the opposite argument that innocent people should prove to the State that they are innocent. Considering that such institutions and bodies as the State and the police force are artificial creations and recognising the fact that being supposedly free human beings allowed to exist in privacy and without interference, why should we allow anything or anyone to hold our details? Why does the State's needs seemingly take precedence over our own needs? It is very likely that the fact that the State holds my DNA makes little difference to how I live my life. But this does not accept the fact that something has information about me that it should not be able to have, it is mine and is personal to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 I have no objection to them getting rid of the database provided every single person in the country agrees to have their DNA tested every time a crime is committed where this can be used as a detection method. The sample can be destroyed after checking of course. Being tested hundreds of times a year obviously makes a whole lot more sense than keeping one sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted December 5, 2008 Author Share Posted December 5, 2008 To clarify the local position: Police Scientific Support Manager, Graham Bell, says Manx legislation in this area has always been out of sync with most of the UK. He explains what happens when evidence is gathered here... "If someone is arrested the DNA sample is taken by a mouth swab. That's sent away to a forensic service provider in the UK who get a DNA profile from it. That's then speculatively searched on the DNA database. In the UK presently, if the person is released with no charge or not convicted of the offence then that DNA is retained on the database. In our case, the person's DNA is removed from the database and the actual swabs are returned to us and we then destroy them." source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 I have no objection to them getting rid of the database provided every single person in the country agrees to have their DNA tested every time a crime is committed where this can be used as a detection method. The sample can be destroyed after checking of course. Being tested hundreds of times a year obviously makes a whole lot more sense than keeping one sample. Ans - why do you think the police need search warrants? From what you say I'm guess you don't see much difference between the police asking to search your house and asking for a DNA sample - everyone should just be happy to let them do this, apart from the guilty. I don't think that is necessarily true - people have a right to privacy and a lack of interference from the state. The system of search warrants was created to ensure the judicial authorities had oversight of the police - if there was some justification for the police interfering with a person's privacy then it could be done - I believe a similar system should exist for DNA - IF the police have reason - then they should be able to get a sample, but the idea they can just go and randomly trawl the innocent in the hope of finding the guilty is to me fundamentally the wrong way round. It goes entirely against my ideas on liberty and the basic privacy of the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 The state is MY servant, not the other way round. Quite right but they seem to have collectively fogotten that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.